Great article for stirring debate and conversations we need to have. That said, I donG«÷t agree. If the Chief Information Officer is really doing his job he is covering those cutting edge things about how information, not data, is used. Sounds likewe are coming up with work arounds for CIOG«÷s being too focused on thetechnology (because they grew up in IT and that is what they understand) andnot enough on the big picture.

I have similar thoughts onwhether the CIO/CDO reports to G«£businessG«• or directly to the CEOG«™ who I thoughtrepresented the business? He had better or their wonG«÷t be any. Myobservations of the resubordination of those functions away from the seniorleadership/C suite team is that this is again covering for a failure inleadership and ultimately causes more problems than it fixes. You need that CIO with a seat at the table forbalance. Business Operations guys feel like ultimately they know it all,but can be subject to the same blinders that you are proclaiming CIO to havecoming from their area of expertise. A lot of times they donG«÷t appreciateissues of strategic interest to the company as they relate to IT and information. It isimportant to balance.

Information Technology in thetruest sense of the word is going to be advancing at a tremendous rate and willbe more, not less, important in the future of every company. I feel verystrongly that calls for making it a commodity, like electricity, are fraughtwith peril. Ultimately it is a LOT more complicated thanelectricity. Not only is it more complicated but getting informationsuperiority wrong can kill companies, has killed companies, and willincreasingly kill companies in the global market place. Specifically I amthinking about Nortel, hacking, and cyber security. You cannotcommoditize things that dynamic which can allow a competitor to kill yourbusiness.

Of course my real fear is that my job will be usurped by the company C3PO. @Laurianne you forgot CISO, CEDO, CXO, CNTO, and probably others.The reality is that titles are only important to HR departments looking at resumes. And non-technical Journalists.

Mike hit the nail on the head here.It's the Chief "X" Officer: "X" meaning Information, Innovation, Technology, Data, Digital, or whatever the latest label makes sense. The titles mean slightly different things, but it all comes down to one basic thing: who will oversee how your company in particular can leverage the information at its disposal to the fullest? That is what the business needs.20 years ago it was building out the Ethernet infrastructure and staging Servers and Workstations to share access to that information. Now we see tablets connecting into the cloud for that information, and incidentally not dissimilar to TVs with antennas connecting into A/C outlet plugs to receive transmissions. The difference is it's interactive. Carr wasn't wrong, just incomplete, which is how he upset the IT community (including myself) - by apparently marginalizing it. What he didn't see was the evolving role of IT with the infrastructure part becoming commoditized. IT isn't becoming obsolete, it's evolving into something that can drive the business if applied correctly and in tandem with the business lines.The challenge is ensuring we in IT management are moving in that direction, and that our CEOs see us as moving that way. Otherwise we risk going the way of Blackberry - staying in our comfort zone too long and realizing too late that we missed our chance to improve on our contributions. For example, back in 2008, the idea was brought forth at my company to use smartphones. We didn't say no - we said not yet. Since then the security options we were waiting for (a must for any financial institution) have become available. Our smartphone phase-in is 90% complete. The users love it. We keep our jobs because we continue to deliver what's needed and wanted at the company - faster, better, cheaper access to information both our own and others' so we all can get our jobs done.

The fad concept is interesting. But we've got a blank slate right now in many ways. As integrated as mobile technology is in our lives now, for example, how many enterprises have a "chief mobile officer?" What would such a person do? Would it sound gimmicky? Sure, initially, but you could just as easily say that mobility is the new dominant form factor for computing and we could be in for 20-30 years of mobile screens being primary like we just exited the PC age. It certainly seems important enough to have a dedicated C-level exec.

I think technology is again ruling the perspective here and not in a good way. What we need to do is look at the role from a business perspective ie. business architecture. What are the key business deliverables of the area of responsibility that you are looking at and then the alignment with the underlying technology environment. In most cases I would suggest the alignment is best captured by a CIO - Chief Innovation Officer. The role needs a strong background in business and technology so as to leverage technology from an innovation perspective. The key change in focus is more around how to guide/align the business structure and culture in leveraging technology rather than technology running the business.

The casual reference by a Gartner analyst about CMO outspending CIO has become a bible these days. Everyone keeps on quoting that or something similar. The title of CIO's post may change but not the importance. They used to be called something else 20 years earlier they will be called something else 20 years from now. How does that matter? Challenge is how a CIO will transform its understanding and capability to become a business enabler than a technology provider. Though business always hold IT as an excuse for their poor performance but that will not change anytime soon. More than technology its the organizational dynamics (cynically politics, turf control) that will spell doom for companies not adopting the newer wave of technology.

Your thesis could play out exactly. It could also be that one or both of these new CDOs represent fads. I suspect we will see companies where there is a phalanx of digital/information C-level executives, but others will move away from a traditional CIO.

So this theory proposes the CMO and CDO become the CEO's important new best friends and the CIO is left keeping the lights on? I agree Chief Data Officer may be a title on the rise -- for good reason -- but must that position be superior to the CIO? I don't see why.

The many CIOs already driving line-of-business innovation are not going anywhere. Perhaps the CDO and CIO work together for the CEO, much as the CIO and CSO do. And speaking of CSOs, CDOs can't give CEOs the whole range of necessary security expertise. What do you think, IT leaders? Chime in.

All these new C-level tech positions simply underline the fact that all business is digital at this point in history. Companies must divide powers as needed to make sure they're effectively leveraging the vast ecosystem of tech. Digital/Information/Infosec officers can clearly find enough to do while not necessarily ceding ground in terms of ownership of the technology infrastructure at an organization.

In today's technology-driven world, "innovation" has become a basic expectation. IT leaders are tasked with making technical magic, improving customer experience, and boosting the bottom line -- yet often without any increase to the IT budget. How are organizations striking the balance between new initiatives and cost control? Download our report to learn about the biggest challenges and how savvy IT executives are overcoming them.

Is DevOps helping organizations reduce costs and time-to-market for software releases? What's getting in the way of DevOps adoption? Find out in this InformationWeek and Interop ITX infographic on the state of DevOps in 2017.

Transformation is on every IT organization's to-do list, but effectively transforming IT means a major shift in technology as well as business models and culture. In this IT Trend Report, we examine some of the misconceptions of digital transformation and look at steps you can take to succeed technically and culturally.